FLYER FOR 2ND EDITION E40 AND P40 IS OUT- SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2012

@calvinhobbesliker Japan_1942_NO.png Germany_1942_NO.png Russia_1942_NO.png Italy_1942_NO.png UK_India_1942_NO.png France_1942_NO.png China_1942_v1_NO.png ANZAC_1942_NO.png US_1942_NO.png

My group usually uses control markers for 10, especially in stacks that won’t be splitting up anytime soon (like in Moscow)

If UK attacks and does not finish the standing army off, the standing army stays there.

I generally represent such a scenario with French units atop of chips as the French are the least utilized army.

If the Axis then moves in, you would represent all units there with the Axis nation that claims the remaining standing army.  So in example:

UK attacks Turkey and has to retreat after killing 4 units.
Put 1 French Inf atop of the remaining units (3, I think?)
Italy then moves in and claims Turkey.
Remove the French INF, place an Italian INF atop the chips.  They now move and act as Italian units.

Pretty sure that is how the scenario would work.  Just remember that claiming neutral standing armies is part of the NCM phase, so those units in Turkey can only defend until the subsequent Italian turn.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@capnstak:

Is there a significant difference between the two or could I use the videos from Alpha 3.5 rules and apply the same way as with 2nd edition?

It should work.  The big difference is that the UK has 1 less Infantry in Egypt in 2e, and 2e has the rules about the Soviet-Mongolian defense treaty.

Thanks so much! Very cool. I appreciate it, and might test this with my Global first edition. I like the global, but man it is a long game. I think AA50 is one of the best!

The problem with that is if the US took Manchuria, it would revert to Chinese control so the US would not be able to use a factory there or even build one itself.  Also, US would not get the 3 IPCs for Manchuria either. 
However, USA could take Korea and put a minor there.